Standing Committee G

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Education Bill

Clause 145 - Duties of LEA in respect of childcare

Eleanor Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 551, in page 86, line 8, after 'shall', insert
'having consulted providers of and users of childcare facilities in their area,'.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 552, in page 86, line 18, at end insert
'and the Secretary of State shall provide funding to cover the additional costs of doing so.'.

Eleanor Laing: It gives me great pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I do not normally have the honour of speaking first in Committee. Part 9 of the Bill deals with child care and nursery education. Amendment No. 551 would require a local authority to consult both the providers of child care and the consumers, in other words, parents and guardians, when it reviews the sufficiency of child care provision in its area. It is a fairly minor amendment. Generally the Opposition agree with the Government's intention in the clause. It is good to require the local authority to review the sufficiency of child care provision. I particularly welcome—I hope that the Minister will be pleased with a small amount of praise for what his Department are doing—the provision in subsection (1)(3), which states that the local authority
''shall also establish and maintain a service providing information to the public relating to the provision of childcare and related services in their area.''
 That is an excellent provision and we thoroughly support it. 
 I would like to explore a little further what the Government mean by concentrating on child care rather than nursery education. I have mentioned this before and this might be a more appropriate place for the Minister to give us an explanation. I am still concerned about the merging of child care and education. I accept that for very small children, child care also means education. There is no real dividing line between them for a two, three or four-year-old because the learning process starts at birth and continues, I suppose, throughout life, but let us not wax lyrical on that. 
 I appreciate that the learning process need not be deliberate for a very small child, but I want to explore what the Government recognise as the difference between child care and education, which has an effect when it comes to allocating budgets. One might say that it does not matter to a mother whether her child is being looked after or educated because it all comes down to the same thing for a very 
 small child. It may not matter to the individual parent, but we are here in our capacity as legislators, not individual parents, so we must consider cost implications and the structures within which services are provided. For that reason, I want to hear more about what the Minister envisages. 
 It is a pity that no Liberal Democrat representatives are here this morning. That is sad, because we have normally had good representation from the Liberal Democrats. The time that they have taken to speak in Committee is disproportionate to their number, and indeed influence, but they have raised some important issues. This is an issue on which the Liberal Democrats usually want to ask questions, so I am sorry that they are not here to participate. Nevertheless, it would be very helpful to hear the Minister's response.

Ivan Lewis: You have already warned me, Mr. Pike, that if I refer to the respective positions of our football teams, you will rule it out of order, so I will not do so this morning. I am delighted to welcome you to the Chair.
 I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) for endorsing the general direction of Government policy on this matter and acknowledging the importance of investing in early years education and child care. There is consensus on the Committee, and it is common sense that investing in that education and the early years of a child's life makes a difference to their development all the way through to adulthood. 
 On the hon. Lady's general points about the relationship between child care and early years education, it is important to say that until this Bill, early years education was covered on a statutory basis, but child care was not. We now have the early years partnerships, which are responsible for having a co-ordinated and cohesive strategy, and the hon. Lady will welcome that. It seems anomalous not to clarify child care roles and responsibilities in statute, and it is important to note that this is the first time that we have done so. 
 I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment's objective. It is absolutely integral to the success of the strategy that we consult and involve providers and users of child care facilities in any decision that is made at local level. The guidance that already exists makes it clear to local partnerships that the consultation process is essential to their responsibilities in making decisions about local provision. There is no difference in the objective or outcome. Early years partnerships are expected to consult fully the relevant stakeholders—the parents and providers—before they make decisions. The hon. Lady welcomed the new requirement in the legislation to provide information proactively to relevant parties locally. That will mean they are aware of early years education and child care provision and will be able to comment on its local development and shape, as well as being aware of priorities and of the resources available. 
 I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment because the objective that she wants to achieve is 
 clearly achieved in the guidance. I give a commitment to the Committee that guidance will always stress the importance of involving and consulting providers and users of child care and early years education services. It is anomalous and not in the best interests of consumers to have an artificial separation between the two. It is sensible and right from the consumer's point of view—as the hon. Lady said, that is what is important—to bring those aspects together so that we have a cohesive strategy and a co-ordinated approach, and parents know from the time of a child's birth the range of interventions and services in their area. It is also important that service providers have the opportunity to contribute to the development of that provision. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, but things are still a bit woolly. I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language, but thinking up a more sophisticated phrase would take more time, so I shall leave it at that. In light of the Minister's commitment on the record about the guidance that will be given on consultation—

Ivan Lewis: Is given and will be given.

Eleanor Laing: I accept that, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 552, in page 86, line 18, at end insert
'and the Secretary of State shall provide funding to cover the additional costs of doing so.'.
 I am delighted to see you in the Chair again, Mr. Pike. 
 An issue that faces most, if not all, local authorities is the propensity of Government to decide that a new initiative is required and that a local authority is the best organisation to implement it, but to provide no money for doing so. I am not talking only about this Government. Over many years, Governments have offloaded responsibilities for inspection, reports, monitoring and additional services without ever providing adequate resources to enable local authorities to discharge them. Anyone involved with local authorities will tell the same story. Year by year, it is more difficult to make ends meet and balance the books, yet every year the demands on, and expectations of, local authorities rise. 
 I tabled the amendment to acknowledge that fact. It would put in place a mechanism to ensure that at least the initiative under discussion did not place an additional cost burden on local authorities. Let us consider in detail what we are asking authorities to do. Proposed new section 118A(1) states: 
''A local education authority shall review annually the sufficiency of childcare provision for their area.''
 What does that entail in a reasonably substantial local authority area? Let us consider a county council such as Yorkshire or Surrey, which are large LEAs with substantial populations over a significant geographical area. 
 Carrying out a detailed review of every nursery in a primary, junior or first school, of every local voluntary-run playgroup and nursery, and of all the other diverse organisations that play a part in the sector will be virtually a full-time job. At the very least, I expect the officer who carries out the inquiry to need to speak to each group annually. They may also have to visit some of them. They will need not only to carry out a numbers review, but to consider capacity, the ability of individual pre-school groups or nurseries to expand, potential closures or changes, population flows in and out of the county, and whether there is adequate provision in areas of new-house building. 
 Those tasks will constitute a significant proportion of an officer's job, at least over a number of months. We are certainly talking about a significant proportion of an FTE—full-time equivalent—in the LEA. That responsibility must be paid for. It is new, and may gather together some work that is already being done. The Government cannot be certain that the provision requires an LEA to employ an additional member of staff to enable them to carry out that responsibility. Will the money to pay for that additional member of staff come from schools' budgets, special needs provision from central Government, or increased council tax? It must come from somewhere. The amendment would ensure that LEAs know that when they are asked to take on that responsibility, central Government will provide them with additional funding to enable them to do so. All too often, the Government do not do that when they place a new responsibility on the LEAs' shoulders. If the Government accept the amendment, as I hope that they will, the LEAs will at least take on those responsibilities in the knowledge that that will not take precious resources from other areas. 
 I hope that, if the Minister can take the amendment on board, he will set a new trend when central Government adopt new proposals that have a direct impact on the cost base of LEAs.

Ivan Lewis: We have heard a revelatory statement this morning: the new Tory party is the friend of local government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is unlikely to serve in the Treasury on the basis of his proposal.
 However, there is a serious point to be made about the historical funding of child care and early years provision. The Opposition are reluctant to discuss history, but before the Government were elected, the more progressive LEAs could only develop quality child care and early years provision largely because they consciously chose to prioritise nursery provision, and only if they had the necessary resources. Under the Government of the party represented by the hon. Gentleman, they received little statutory funding for the development of nursery provision, which was discretionary. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept the irony that the amendment relates to the provision of child care information services. 
 There is always a debate about what proportion of the standard spending assessment is designed for what purpose. The Government provide LEAs with a ring-fenced, targeted sum of £15 million a year for those services through the standard spending assessment. That commitment runs from 2001 to 2004, and works out at about £100,000 per LEA for each early years partnership. The hon. Gentleman expressed a common concern about the relationship between central and local government, and the requirement that the Government place on local government to fulfil various responsibilities. Local government does not always believe that it gets a fair deal. Not only are the Government including the issue to which the amendment relates in the standard spending assessment, but there is also a ring-fenced tangible pot of money to fund this specific responsibility. 
 In a world where there are continued debates about priorities, pressure on resources and difficult decisions about finite resources, no Secretary of State or Government can make in a Bill an infinite commitment to fund a particular service. On the Government's commitment, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The track record is there for all to see. There is money for this purpose through a combination of the standard spending assessment and a ring-fenced provision.

Chris Grayling: May I ask one question? Is this responsibility on an LEA encompassed by that ring-fenced budget, or is the ring-fenced budget already allocated to other requirements, which would make this an additional requirement?

Ivan Lewis: That is a fair question. No, this money is being used now specifically for this purpose, and will run until 2004. It will be reviewed as part of the current expenditure review. It is not an aspiration; the pot of money is now being used specifically to fulfil this responsibility.

Andrew Turner: The Minister may be surprised to hear that I was listening carefully to his argument. He said that, in the face of possible alternative priorities and constant difficult decisions about those priorities, he was unwilling to make in the Bill a commitment for the Government to provide a certain amount of money. Does he understand that this proposed clause and, in particular, this subsection, requires exactly that of local authorities? What is the qualitative difference between the Government making such a commitment and the local authority being required to make such a commitment?

Ivan Lewis: Very simply, there is a legitimate debate. The Government have announced a review of the amount of money given to local government through the standard spending assessment and the amount given in different ways, such as through ring-fenced standards funds. There is on-going consideration of the best way to allocate resources so that local authorities have a decent settlement and can deliver the kind of services that they have a statutory responsibility to deliver and that their communities expect. In that context it would be complete nonsense to place a requirement in the Bill for child care information services to be funded in a ring-fenced and specific way. That would not be appropriate, but it
 would be the consequence of accepting the amendment.

Andrew Turner: It is for my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell to defend the amendment, but I believe that the Minister objects to the ring-fenced nature of the obligation rather than the obligation on the Government to continue indefinitely to provide resources for this requirement on local authorities.

Ivan Lewis: The amendment would allow the local education authority to use its discretion as to how much it chose to spend for this purpose. The Government would then have to pick up the costs. That cannot be sensible or good legislation.
 I understand the purpose of the amendment The debate about the relationship between the Government and local government is a legitimate one. The Government have announced a review of the balance between the allocation of resources to SSAs and to standards funds and ring-fenced budgets. Under any Government, it would be a bad piece of legislation that allowed local authorities to spend what they chose on any policy and then expect the Secretary of State to pick up the bill. That is not the intention of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, and on that basis I ask him to withdraw it.

Chris Grayling: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I am reassured that finance is available to enact the provision. I add one caveat, which is that the Government have a habit of introducing ring-fenced budgets. Last week, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) initiated a debate about threshold pay. We referred to the future of the allocation of funds for threshold pay. The Government have ring-fenced funds for the initial two years and intimated that after that, funds will be allocated through the SSA. However, they have not guaranteed that all the requirements will be funded in that fashion. It concerns us that a ring-fenced amount may exist for several years and then disappear. I hope that the Minister, as long as he retains his office, will ensure that funding continues to be—[Interruption.] I would not expect the Minister to give an assurance for the indefinite future. I hope that the Government continue to fund the provision. I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's comments, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146 - Early years development and childcare partnerships and plans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: No amendments have been tabled, but I have questions for the Minister concerning the Government's intentions. I welcome elements of the clause and—I almost said praise but perhaps that is going too far—endorse what the Government are trying to do. Clause 146(5), which requires the phrase ''and childcare'' to be added in every instance where legislation refers to early years development plans or
 partnerships, will ensure that we are now considering early years and childcare partnership plans. I welcome that, but we must also consider how the Government intend to implement it. I am concerned about the wording of subsection (3):
''The statement mentioned in subsection (2)(a) must deal with such matters, and relate to such period, as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations.''
 That sort of phrase appears frequently in the Bill. I am concerned about its vagueness. It is perfectly reasonable to say that this shall be 
''determined by or in accordance with regulations.''
 I will slow down to allow the Minister to find the line to which I am referring. It is line 41 on page 86. There is no point in rushing through my remarks if the Minister does not have time to consider his answer. 
 Where will the regulations be published? As representatives who have been elected to legislate, when will we have a chance to consider them? Who will compile them, and will we have an opportunity to debate their contents? None of that is clear.

Ivan Lewis: The regulations will simply be a means of supporting and guiding the early years partnerships in conducting their annual review of the sufficiency of child care provision. We want to achieve the right balance, so that local partnerships can respond to the needs of their community in a flexible and sensitive way, yet welcome regulations from central Government that assist and guide them in carrying out their responsibilities. We have debated the relationship between primary legislation, regulation and guidance under several clauses. In this clause, regulations are the best way forward.
 There would be an opportunity to consider the implications of any changes to regulations. However, the measure is, basically, a re-enactment of the law set out in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. In line with guidance already issued, existing regulations will be amended to cover the new duty. Thus, we are discussing not a significant change to the status quo, but the alignment in regulations of changes introduced by the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: Will Parliament have an opportunity to ask questions about the regulations?

Ivan Lewis: May I come back to the hon. Lady on that point?

Eleanor Laing: Of course, I eagerly await the Minister's answer. I acknowledge that I have sprung the question on him without notice; therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for him to give an answer at some later stage.

Ivan Lewis: The regulations would be the subject of a negative resolution procedure. The proposed changes are technical; thus, the regulations would not normally be debated in the House. Obviously, changes in regulation are made public in advance and are consulted on. The people at the sharp end—those involved in local partnerships—and Members of the House will have the opportunity to comment on and
 debate the issues, but there will not be a debate or a vote on the change in the regulations. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied by that response.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147 - Childcare functions of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and national assembly for Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Grayling: I want to make a brief point, not so much about the individual requirements but about the overall facility that the clause gives to the Secretary of State. Members of the Committee will know from my previous comments that I am concerned about the over-regulation of the pre-school sector; I am extremely concerned about any provision that confers on the Secretary of State the power to provide additional functions to the chief inspector of schools in regard to nursery education. The current inspection regime for nurseries is already too onerous. It is right and proper that we should monitor the standards and the way in which our youngest children are looked after in the pre-school and nursery environment, but there is a huge danger in making a jump beyond that by trying to impose on the relatively informal pre-school and nursery learning environment an inspection framework that resembles that for a primary school. I have seen some of the details of the Ofsted inspection requirements for such schools; they are too onerous.
 An inspection regime for pre-school groups should not go much beyond an assessment of the environment in which the children are kept, whether they appear happy, well looked after and to be developing well and of the broad range of activities to ensure that they are consistent with the children's development. I am opposed to the expectation that people running such schools, often on a voluntary or part-time basis, which have limited resources and small financial turnovers would have the time to prepare detailed documentation or to relate their curriculums to detailed stipulations. It causes me great anxiety that the clause gives the Government the power to place additional functions onto the inspection process and, by definition, onto those schools. There is a danger that the Government will put such a burden on pre-school and early years organisations and that many of them will be forced out of business. Such groups are not creatures that have emerged in the past two or three years under the Government's funding. The Minister has been trying to make party political capital out of his contributions—I do not blame him for that—but he should remember that it was the previous Conservative Government who took the first step towards much broader funding of nursery education. Whether or not he agreed with vouchers, they were designed to create greater opportunities in nursery education. 
 The Government therefore need to remember that many of the groups covered by the provisions are long-standing; they have not grown up over the past couple 
 of years. Those playgroups, pre-schools and nurseries have successfully existed for a long time, in—until the past few years—a relatively unregulated environment. The Government rightly expect that if those groups or the pupils who attend them are to receive Government funding, the Government have a right to set out an inspection regime and parameters for standards. No one would dispute the logic of that; it is a question of the degree of burden that one places upon them. 
 I caution the Government to be careful before they attempt to take these powers and turn them into additional regulations to impose on those pre-school groups. Such groups do a great job for our children, and for society, and it would be a shame to lose them because the Government tried to regulate beyond the groups' ability to deal with the regulations.

Phil Willis: I apologise for arriving a little late this morning; my exam paper from Edexcel did not arrive on time.
 I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The Liberal Democrats support the raising of standards in early years settings and child care placements. However, one of the sad things about this part of the is Bill is that there is no support for such settings—the Minister may tell us about plans that are in train—in the way of training and additional in-service support. 
 We all listened to the regulations for special education needs, which will apply to early-year settings. One of the requirements of early-year settings is to have the equivalent of a special education needs co-ordinator. When I asked about special education needs co-ordinators in early years settings—even a single-child minder, minding one child could be covered by the regulations—the Government said that the provision could be shared. 
 If the regulations for special education needs are to be met—I believe that they should be—and if we want to encourage a better quality of provision for children with special education needs in early years settings, it is incumbent on the Government to put in place, together with the early years and child care development partnerships, some support mechanisms that will allow those settings to flourish. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that we seem to be adding burdens and regulations on to such settings without helping them to use the regulations as positive tools for improvement. Instead, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are simply burdens that might force such groups out of business.

Ivan Lewis: The purpose of this part of the legislation is to ensure that the inspection regime is consistent and that it links to child care tax credit. If the Government decide that they wish to extend the providers who are able to claim child care tax credit, it is important that the inspection regime is the same and that the quality required is the same.
 Earlier in Committee we said that, if the Government are to fund providers to offer a child care service, those providers should be subject to a reasonable, but not over- burdensome, inspection regime. That balance is always difficult to achieve, 
 particularly when the inspection regime is new. It takes time for people to get used to new regimes. 
 As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, there is an issue over support and training. Therefore, it is important that all providers feel that there is an infrastructure through the early years partnerships and the LEA, to offer the support that is required. It would be strange to have legislation that states that some providers would be subject to an Ofsted inspection, but that others would not. If we were to extend the tax credit eligibility, but the clause was not passed, some providers who would, for the first time, receive significant additional resources, would not be subject to the same inspection regime. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of training. I agree with him. Despite what the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said about history, which was a slight rewriting, this is a development of an entirely new service on a universal basis: high-quality child care and high-quality nursery provision. Those who manage that provision and the staff who work in it must receive adequate training and development support. Agreement has been reached with the learning and skills councils that they must enhance the training that is available locally to child care providers. Significant resources will be provided for that purpose. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. 
 Returning to the effect of the amendment, if new providers become eligible for the tax credit, they will have to be subject to the same inspection regime as other providers.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. Could you confirm that we are debating clause 147 stand part and that there are no amendments?

Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The only vote would be on whether the clause should stand part.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for the few words that he used just before he gave way, which reiterated that he regards support through a tax credit as indistinguishable from support through Government subsidy. Is that his position?

Ivan Lewis: No. The general point is that if a provider receives Government support, in whatever form, there should be a consistent inspection regime and a requirement to meet certain standards. We said all along that the international evidence shows that simply going for increased volume of child care does not achieve the desired objectives. Along with an increase in capacity and volume, the quality must be a central element of the care that is being provided.

Andrew Turner: I entirely accept that argument. I am not clear how the Minister regards support through a tax credit. He has just implied that he regards it as support for a provider. Surely support through a tax credit is support for a consumer, whereas support through direct subsidy can be described as support for a provider. Is there not a distinction between those two types of Government support?

Ivan Lewis: No, I do not think that there is. One of the things that consumers or parents are entitled to know about the new purchasing power to buy quality child care is that it includes a regulatory regime that guarantees certain basic standards. We all know that regulation does not always work, but it minimises risk and as much as possible helps to guarantee the quality of the provision that parents purchase.

Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) raised an important point that, with respect, I do not think the Minister fully understood. Funding places for three and four-year-olds means giving the money directly to a provider, which then comes into the scheme and is inspected by Ofsted. Tax credits, however, go to the individual.
 Let us imagine that Government Members run an early setting called ''Labourbirds''. All the parents of children who go there pay the full, commercial fees. If Mr. Whip and his wife fell on hard times and had to apply for tax credits, would they have to tell the provider? The hon. Member for Isle of Wight and I might be wrong, but the Minister seems to be saying that, in that situation, the whole setting becomes subject to inspection by Ofsted. If a week later Mr. Whip and his wife go back into employment—that is the nature of the modern economy—they no longer need the tax credit and the setting must no longer be inspected by Ofsted. That seems to be a bit of nonsense, and the provider will know that they have applied for tax credits only if Mr. Whip and his wife tell it. If they do not, how will the provider know?

Ivan Lewis: I entirely understood the point; I just did not agree with it. There are two principles. The first is that the Government believe that where state funding is provided, a variety of performance measures and an inspection framework are appropriate. The second is that when the provision of a tax credit allows an individual to purchase a service from a provider that is not part of the inspection framework, it is important to have the capacity to bring any such provider into the requirement to be inspected by Ofsted. The parent has the right to know that, from whomever they are choosing to buy the service, a quality protection exists. The legislation gives the Government the capacity to bring into the regulatory framework providers who are currently outside it.

Phil Willis: With respect, the provider in Mr. Whip's case will not know that Mr. Whip is in receipt of a tax credit unless he informs it. To my knowledge, there is no requirement on the individual to tell the provider.

Ivan Lewis: I will help to clarify the matter. The Government are talking about naming not individual providers but categories of provider. At present, the tax credit may be used to buy child care only from certain providers. The Government could in the future decide to extend the categories of providers, and the Tax Credits Bill, which is currently in Committee, provides that option. If the Government wanted to do that, there is the provision to bring those providers into the inspection regulatory framework. Perhaps I did not make this clear enough. This is linked with the Tax Credits Bill, which gives the Government the future option to extend the range of providers that tax credits can be used to purchase child care from.

Phil Willis: My understanding of the Tax Credits Bill is that it gives individuals the right to use tax credits wherever they want. The Minister has clarified the situation by saying that for early years provision, tax credits can be used only for a provider that is part of an early years partnership.

Caroline Flint: Or registered.

Phil Willis: That is the point: the private sector provider to which Mr. Whip sends his child may be registered, but not part of a partnership.

Ivan Lewis: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The clause makes reference to approved persons. In the future that might not necessarily mean a full inspection and registration. There will be a guarantee of consultation on any scheme. We need to place it in the context of concerns that parents and guardians have expressed: that they may be eligible for tax credits, but the child care arrangements that they want to make are not possible because the tax credit can currently be used to buy services only from particular providers.

Phil Willis: That is my point.

Ivan Lewis: Yes. That does not create the flexibility and the kind of service that we need to create. This is a difficult and sensitive area. Whom do we accept and how do we inspect what have historically been called informal arrangements? Parents may decide that they want someone they trust, such as a next-door neighbour or a relative, to look after their child, being confident that they will do so in a satisfactory way and in a quality setting. The Government are seeking to open up the debate and the possibility that in the future, because we want to achieve the objectives that we set out with, we extend the range of providers that parents in receipt of tax credits may use.
 We want to increase the range of providers but not to undermine quality, to increase flexibility for parents and carers and ensure that options are available, but also legislate for some form of inspection and regulation of those settings. It is to be debated whether such inspection should be light touch or carried out on the same basis on which Ofsted inspects other providers. If people are using a relative or neighbour they would not want an Ofsted inspector knocking at the door. This is about giving power in the future, if we go down those routes and extend the scope of the tax credit scheme, to ensure some form of inspection and monitoring regime to guarantee quality.

Eleanor Laing: This is an extremely important point. The Minister has clarified the Government's intentions. I am concerned that the clause appears to give the Government power to make changes that we will not have a chance to question or explore because that power will be exercised by the Secretary of State. This is our only opportunity to ask the Minister questions. Do the Government envisage that the tax credit scheme could be expanded, including the safeguards for the protection of small children that we support, for the employment of nannies in the home? I am not sure whether I have to declare this interest, but I employ a nanny. I pay my tax and the
 nanny's tax and other expenses out of my taxed income.

Phil Willis: The hon. Lady is part of the nanny state.

Eleanor Laing: Yes, I have to admit that in that context I am. A very good nanny she is too, but that is not the point. This is the only opportunity that we have to ask the Minister whether the Government envisage expanding the scheme. I am sure that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) would agree that whether the answer is yes or no, the question is important. Hundreds of thousands of working mothers throughout the country want to know the answer.

Ivan Lewis: We do not plan to extend the provision to nannies. However, we do plan to review the best way of achieving our objective of flexible, affordable, high-quality child care. The hon. Lady says that hon. Members will not have the opportunity to debate that, but there will be plenty of opportunities to ask questions and participate in consultation. To be frank, if the Government decided to extend the range of providers covered by the tax credit, the major concerns would be how that impacted on quality, and the balance of regulations. The clause is designed to ensure that parents have access to the flexibility that they require in an increasingly complex labour market, without compromising quality.
 I have explained the Government's position as comprehensively as I can. We want to reach sensible decisions and maintain a balance between increasing the volume of child care and protecting its quality.

Andrew Turner: Two issues now arise. I remind the Minister that he has not responded to the question of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about what happens to Master or Miss Whip in a private nursery such as Labourbirds, when his or her parents fall on hard times and need to claim the tax credit. It would appear that they are not entitled to do so: the tax credit is of no benefit to Mr. and Mrs. Whip in those circumstances.
 The second point relates to the regulation of nannies. They provide care in the home. What about grannies, who provide care outside the home?

Ivan Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not going to give him the headline that he wants: ''Ofsted to inspect grannies''. That is not our intention. Mrs. Whip must be a special lady. Why would that nursery not be registered? It is likely to be registered. If it were not, that would be because it was not part of the category of providers. I assume that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough welcomes the fact the Government are considering extending the categories of providers so that people can buy places through the tax credit.

Phil Willis: We agree with the Minister. We are not trying to be difficult, although that might appear to be the case. An early years setting in my constituency was a member of the partnership, but decided to leave because of the onerous inspection regime and because it did not meet the requirements. Nevertheless, to
 satisfy the parents, it rightly said that it wanted the LEA to inspect it to ensure that it met health and safety and other requirements. It is therefore registered with the LEA but is not part of the partnership. It said that it would not take any Government money for three and four-year-olds, but would be self-sufficient, so that parents pay the full cost.
 They are many settings throughout the country that want to do things their own way and provide their own curriculum, but are nevertheless bone fide early years settings. Mr. and Mrs. Whip have sent their child to such a setting. If Mr. Whip must apply for a tax credit, he will receive it, but unless he tells the provider, the provider has no way of knowing and would not come under the regime to which the Minister referred. If the provider knew, it might tell the parent that he must remove the child because it did not want to be part of the regime.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but the provider would know if someone received a tax credit. If the relevant provider were not eligible, the sad reality would be that the child would have to move to another provider because of the provider's decision. That is one reason why the provider would know about the tax credit. The Mr. Whip scenario is therefore blown out of the water. We must revisit the link between who is eligible to provide child care and who receives tax credits. That is more ammunition for the argument that there should be more flexibility and sensitivity to take account of local circumstances. The difficulty lies in getting the balance right between flexibility, responsiveness, quality and protection. The Tax Credit Bill will enable the Government to keep their options open, to review a relatively new development in the infrastructure throughout the country, and to respond sensitively. If it is clear that too many parents or young children are being denied opportunities, that Bill will allow the Government the flexibility to revisit the basis on which child care is bought. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.

Eleanor Laing: Is the Minister giving way?

Ivan Lewis: I am.

Eleanor Laing: I apologise; I was not sure whether the Minister had finished his point. With the expansion of the categories, could there be providers who are funded through tax credits but who are not inspected?

Ivan Lewis: No, is the short answer. The debate is about the nature of the inspection: its light touch, whether it is a full inspection and whether it can be appropriate to fit the purpose. That would have to be considered along with any extension.

Caroline Flint: I am delighted by the discussion so far, because I advocated that we consider the registration of in-home child care, particularly for shift workers and those with disabled children, in Committee on the Care Standards Bill. I am pleased that there will be more debate on that.
 I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of a particular problem. Low-income families tend to use more informal child care, which is currently not covered by the criteria for the tax credit. Ironically, 
 therefore, some of the lowest-income families cannot take advantage of the tax credits that we are targeting at that group. Informal child care often means both parents trying to balance child-care arrangements. 
 If we are widening access to tax credits, we need to be aware of any abuse in the system, whether or not inspection takes a different form for different categories. That is why there should be contact with the child care provider, whether formal or informal. That would enable us to satisfy ourselves that the child was being looked after in appropriate conditions, and to check for any abuse of the system.

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend shows her vast knowledge of, and sensitivity in, these matters. I agree with what she has said, but we return to the fact that the Conservative party often, although not always, opposes regulation because of ideological reasons, regardless of whether it is necessary, right or appropriate. The Government do not believe in regulation for its own sake, but in some areas of public policy—child care is one—it is essential to put safeguards in place.
 Sadly, we all know of cases of abuse, and we also know that they are not typical of what happens in child care. Sometimes abuse is presented as if it were a daily occurrence, but it is not. However, because of justifiable concerns and proven cases of things going dreadfully wrong, there should be appropriate regulation and inspection. Most reasonable members of the Committee and people outside accept that, but we must always get the balance right. 
 It may help the Committee to consider parents who may be disadvantaged and whom we need to support. Parents of disabled children who work shifts or are lone parents cannot always access existing forms of child care. They may require child care in their own home. At present, such care is not eligible for child care tax credit support. However, the Chancellor announced that the Government were considering how to help that group of parents. The Tax Credits Act 1999 allows the Government to extend such assistance but, under existing legislation, there is not a parallel statutory base for inspection or a quality framework. Those parents are disadvantaged, and I think that all reasonable people would agree that they should benefit most from the expansion of child care.

Eleanor Laing: We have explored that aspect of clause 147 very well, and I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of extremely important points.
 I am not sure whether I should raise my next point as a point of order, but I think that it should be a question to the Minister. I am concerned about the reference at line 43 on page 87 to the Tax Credits Act 2002. For the past 20 minutes, we have discussed tax credits and their effect. We discussed them in the abstract, and I appreciate that the Minister has replied on the basis of the Government's intentions which, in all fairness, is all that he can do. 
 My concern is that the clause refers to an Act, not to the Bill or to such legislation as may from time to time be enforced or words to that effect. It refers to a Bill as if it were an Act of Parliament. I appreciate that the Government are not interested in the democratic process, and I do not blame the Minister personally. The Government's modus operandi is that democracy and Parliament do not matter. What happens in the House of Commons, in Committees, or in the other place does not matter, because the Government have a huge majority of seats and, therefore, can do as they wish. 
 Even given that disgraceful state of affairs, which we have learned to live with, how can we debate a clause if an integral part of the argument refers to an Act of Parliament that does not exist? It is possible that the Tax Credits Bill may not become the Tax Credits Act 2002. If that were the case, how would we appropriately amend the clause? Our only opportunity to amend it is here and now in the Committee, on Report or, possibly, in the other place. 
 What would happen if the Tax Credits Bill did not become the Tax Credits Act 2002, or if the timing were such that the Education Bill became an Act of Parliament before the Tax Credits Bill became an Act, if it does? It is by no means a certainty. If it were a certainty, why would we bother being here at all? If it is certain that any Bill that the Government bring forward becomes an Act—

Don Touhig: Calm down.

Eleanor Laing: I will not calm down. The matter is exceedingly important. It concerns the basis of our democratic process. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh, as do those to whom I may not refer. They seem to think that it is amusing that a Government can bring forward a Bill and assume that it will become an Act, thereby negating any hope of making democracy work.

Graham Brady: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend when she is in such fine form, but I would like to point out that, even if the Tax Credits Bill were to become an Act, the Government set a precedent last year with the Utilities Bill, which was introduced and debated, only for the Government to decide during the Committee stage to tear up half of it because it was such unadulterated rubbish. Could not the same fate befall the current Bill?

Peter Pike: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Epping Forest, I point out that all Bills that are progressing through the House refer to themselves as Acts, just as this one does. [Interruption.] Order. The Bill is only a Bill, but it calls itself an Act. I understand the point that is being made, but that is the situation.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Pike. I entirely accept your point, but it is not relevant to line 43 on page 87, which does not refer to this Bill but to another Bill as an Act. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is correct. I do not think any other member of the Committee was also a member of the Committee that
 scrutinised the Utilities Bill, but I was and I will always recall sitting for several hours while the Minister tabled amendments that deleted one-third of that Bill. Because we do not know what is in the Government's mind, they could suddenly do a U-turn on the Tax Credits Bill so that it does not become an Act after all. There is no certainty about a Bill becoming an Act, and I do not accept that it is legitimate to refer to another Bill as an Act.

Andrew Turner: I confess that I was going to continue the debate about the other principles that have been discussed this morning. It has been demonstrated that there is no problem so great that Government intervention cannot make it worse. It is exactly the problem of over-regulation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred. The Government want to assist families, particularly poorer families, to access child care. That is excellent. The Government worry about the quality of the child care that those families are accessing; that is also understandable. They regulate, inspect and provide mechanisms which, as far as possible—Labour Members and I are not apart on this; we accept that it is not always possible—provide guarantees for parents about the quality of the education that they are accessing. However, there are difficult cases, such as the nanny of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the disabled child to whom the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) referred, who needs to be taken care of at home, or—the Minister was quick to brush away this suggestion—my granny, to whom I referred earlier. A private sector provider may have no intention of complying with the Government's regulations because he does not foresee a child being educated at his school whose parents will have to have recourse to tax credit. It was not clear in the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough how a provider would find out that the parent was receiving tax credit.

Phil Willis: The provider has to sign it.

Andrew Turner: The provider becomes aware that the parent is receiving tax credit, but then immediately has to either exclude the child or persuade the Government to include his nursery within the ambit of inspected and regulated nurseries. I appreciate that the Government do not propose the same level of inspection for all these settings. As we have seen, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell made it clear, the more difficult the cases are, the less likely it is that people will be willing to invest their time, energy and enthusiasm in undertaking these difficult tasks when they do not know the level of inspection to which the Government expect them to submit themselves.
 A bald clause or subsection such as subsection (1) of clause 147 is of no earthly use to the people involved in provision. It does not give the indications they need before they are willing to make the financial and personal investmentinvestment of time and training, energy and enthusiasmin setting up new provision. The Minister shakes his head, but I am sorry to say that this happens right across those areas in which the Government introduce inspection and regulation. People invest time and enthusiasm, and in many 
 cases their money, and then find that they cannot get over an obstacle which the Government have subsequently put in their way. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Don Valley for her sotto voce remark: ''That's right''.

Caroline Flint: No, I did not say that.

Andrew Turner: In that case, I withdraw that. I misheard her. She would have been right to say ''that's right'' had she done so, because it is right. That is a serious obstacle. The Government need to provide more guidance than they have so far provided if we are to go down this road, as it appears the Government are determined to do, and if there is to be a long-term commitment to the people who make these investments.

Caroline Flint: We are going into detail about how the national child care strategy can evolve and change, taking into account Government intervention in this area, which for so long was disregarded by the Conservative Government. As a result of that investment and attention since 1997, five years down the road we are starting to explore other avenues and their implications for public policy. It is worth reminding ourselves that since the introduction of the working families tax credit, 145,000 families have received help with child care costs. That compares with 47,000 families who benefited from the child care disregard in family credit at its peak. We have also seen an expansion of places and opportunities.
 One of the good things about the early years and child care partnerships is that they are not a bureaucratic hurdle to be overcome, but a resource within communities for anyone interested in engaging in child care. We are focusing on early years provision, but it could be child care in the form of holiday play schemes, after-school care or breakfast clubs. They should be seen as a resource to establish the state of play of any public policy that may benefit the child care provider at any given point in time. That may be in the form of credit, but it may also mean applying to the new opportunities fund for support or going to the regional development agency if a provider wants to start up a business. 
 This debate shows how far we have come. Different Departments have a role in helping to develop and encourage child care in communities in its many forms. We must be mindful of the fact that policies evolve, but we should not see this issue as an obstacle to moving on. It raises questions about how we can bring other groups into the arena, but we should not see it as a hurdle that prevents us from developing and increasing the many good forms of child care in our communities. 
 I want to put that on the record, because we have to understand the context in which we are having this debate. There was no national child care strategy before 1997, but we have one now. This strategy is evolving all the time. We have listened to people in early years and child care partnerships. They may say, ''This booklet is far too thick, can you help us to reduce the bureaucracy?''. The Government have responded to their concerns. 
 This is an important discussion, and we need to take a careful and considered approach. There is a public debate going on. My sympathies vary towards the different forms of informal child care and the financial resources that should be provided for that. We must be wary, because there is a balance between public money going to families and how that money should be accounted for, especially with regard to the safety of the children. If there is any financial abuse of the system, that could result in money going not towards child care but into the family income, without any demonstrable benefits for the provision of child care and the needs of the children. 
 There is a serious debate to be had on public policy and how much public money should go into this area of family support. I welcome the fact that the Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills have acknowledged that this is an issue. We have not come to any concrete conclusion on how we might go about this task, and the Opposition certainly have not. At least we recognise that, five years into the national child-care strategy, it has developed different scenarios, and although our objectives are not being meet, the debate is still open-ended.

Ivan Lewis: There have been some significant and interesting contributions to this debate. First, I should like to respond to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley. She has a long track record of campaigning on these issues, and that is to her credit. People ask what practical impact the Government have on their lives, and whether it makes a difference to the quality of their lives which Government they elect. This policy is one of the most stark examples of the changes that have occurred in local communities in only four or five years as a consequence of having a Labour rather than a Conservative Government in power. Opposition Members will say that this is a party political point, and of course it is. It is also backed up by much conclusive evidence, and I wonder whether that is why we have been going off the main core of the debate, given some of the contributions from Conservative Members.
 I also want to respond to my hon. Friend's comment about being open-minded as this provision develops and evolves, and about the best way to achieve the Government's objectives. It is right that any new policy should develop. We want to increase the flexibility and amount of child care, and we want simultaneously to improve the quality. We need to deal with any unreasonable obstacle or barrier that gets in the way of achieving those objectives, so that the Government are able to meet the needs of children and their families at a local level. I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that she would agree with me that the Tax Credits Bill and this part of this Bill reflect a willingness to develop the policy, review and evaluate the direction in which we are heading and be open-minded about the need to examine any obstacle or barrier. 
 In some ways, I do not have any disagreement with the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. 
 He said that if the Government decided to extend the category of people who are eligible for the tax credit, it would be perfectly sensible and logical to expect that they would simultaneously detail the inspection framework that would be introduced for those providers. It might surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I think that he made a perfectly reasonable request. I would regard that as good practice, and accept that sometimes it does not happen. If it does not happen, we should ensure that it does in the future. There is no reason why public announcements should not be made simultaneously, because that is when the providers will start having to gear up for the change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a movement towards his point. 
 I have always found the contributions of the hon. Member for Epping Forest to be positive, helpful and informed—until now. She did not make a substantive point and seemed to be playing to the Gallery. We do not often refer to the Gallery in Committee, but there is a significant presence here today. You, Mr. Pike, have already informed the Committee about the terminology of Acts and Bills, and the normal parliamentary processes. If it is possible to add to your wise deliberations, I should say that when two Bills are going through parliament in parallel, it is normal parliamentary practice for the Bills to refer to them as Acts. It has been normal practice for many years, and I shall give an example. 
 In 1995–96, the Education Act 1996 and the School Inspections Act 1996 were referred to in exactly the same way in the respective parts of that legislation. We may remember who was in Government in 1996, eroding parliamentary democracy and accountability, with contempt for the House of Commons and having no regard for parliamentary scrutiny. In 1996, the Government was the one that the hon. Lady so slavishly supported.

Eleanor Laing: I was not in the House in 1996, but I appreciate the Minister's his point about convention. That is all very well, and you, Mr. Pike, have given advice, which of course I do not question for a second. However, what will happen to this part of the Bill if the Tax Credits Bill does not become the Tax Credits Act 2002?

Phil Willis: It cannot be enacted.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is answering the question. I also understand the issue and could answer the question in the same terms, but there is no point in me asking questions of the hon. Gentleman or myself. The purpose of the Committee is to enable me to ask the Minister questions, and it is from the Minister that we require answers.

Ivan Lewis: The provisions cannot be enacted.
 The Opposition have referred throughout the Committee to the lack of time to scrutinise the Bill and to the fact that the usual channels have perhaps not been as co-operative as they would have wanted. We have wasted a significant amount of time on a point that has no relevance and no purpose. There is a test of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny. Let 
 us use it on the public. I ask the Gallery to respond on mass to the test—

Peter Pike: Order. We do not recognise that there is a Gallery and so that is not possible.

Ivan Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Pike. There is nevertheless a test that we can carry out with the public. If two pieces of related legislation were going through the House of Commons on a policy area and each one would have a direct impact on the other, I submit that the public would want them dealt with under the current legislative procedure. We live in an era when more than ever the public want common sense from politicians, a sense that there is joined-up government and some consistency and logic to the way that parliamentary business is conducted. Let us move on to discuss serious matters of relevance to schools, parents and children and move off a subject on which the hon. Lady has spent a long time, although I suspect she knows it was a bogus intervention.

Eleanor Laing: I strongly object to that. It was not a bogus point. We have had an extremely good debate this morning on the effect of tax credits and the provision of child care and early years education. The Opposition have elicited some important points from the Minister. The hon. Member for Don Valley also made some important points, with which I entirely agree. As I said before, she is chairman and I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on child care. I hope that she considers that I have asked some important questions too.
 Most unusually, we are trying to achieve more or less the same thing. I support what the Government are trying to do in this part of the Bill. I am concerned about the reference in line 43 because I want to see this part of the Bill enacted. I want to ensure that people in another part of Parliament cannot prevent that by exploiting a loophole. My point is not bogus. I want to ensure that there are no loopholes, and this is the correct place to do so. We want to see this part of the Bill enacted. I shall sit down so that the clause can be agreed forthwith.

Ivan Lewis: I want to make it clear to the hon. Lady that I accept that she is genuinely committed to early years education and to nursery provision. She has made a useful and positive contribution to the debate on all those issues, but her last point was not consistent with her contribution during the rest of our proceedings.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: Before I move on to clause 148, I have been asked about rules of dress. I do not want to have a series of points of order on this either now or at future sittings as we have important issues to debate. The ruling is that there is an expectation that hon. Members dress appropriately and that hon. Gentlemen wear a jacket and tie. Chairmen rarely raise objections to hon. Members or officials who remove their jackets, but they are expected to wear ties. I said before the sitting that hon. Gentlemen could remove their jackets, and that will apply to all sittings
 when I am in the Chair. I do not wish to prolong the proceedings, and I hope that my statement is clear.
 Clause 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 - Regulation of child minding and day care

Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: Schedule 14 is another important part of the Bill. It relates to the regulation of child minding and day care, and we support the Government's general direction in implementing it. It is important that there should be checks on the suitability of people who look after children, especially very young children. I do not question the Government's intention, but I want to ensure that the Bill means what we think it means. Will the Minister explain the wording of clause 1, which is somewhat obscure? I suspect that I thoroughly support its contents, but I want to ensure that what the Minister thinks it says and what I think it says are the same. The clause deals with determining a person's qualification for registration under the Children Act 1989, and that is a worthy intention. Will the Minister explain the Government's intention behind the new subsections? I hope that I will be able to say that that is what I thought they meant.

Ivan Lewis: I shall try to clarify the position. The Bill sets up the arrangements for the criminal records bureau to issue certificates to persons such as child minders and day care providers. Those certificates are available to the Office for Standards in Education as evidence of their suitability to look after children. The schedule provides that the full information supplied on the certificate about registered persons or applicants for registration can also be supplied for others associated with the provision who are looking after children, or are in regular contact with them. The additional information that may not otherwise be supplied on the certificate includes whether or not the person is on the list under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999. The extension also includes the scheme's suitability checks for people looking after children aged over seven-years-old. The provision is needed to ensure that Ofsted receives the information that it requires to assess someone's suitability to look after children or to be in regular contact with them.

Eleanor Laing: That answers my question, and I am grateful to the Minister for having explained the issue properly. We greatly support the provisions. We must be certain that adults in charge of small children can be trusted.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 149 - Powers of LEA in respect of

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: The provisions concern nursery education and the powers of the local education
 authority to fund it. We support the general direction of the clause, but I want to ensure that the Government intend what we assume that they intend. The provisions appear to give power to local authorities and those using nursery education through consultation, but then return the power to the Secretary of State. Subsection (2)(a) states:
''The local education authority—
(a) must, in making the arrangements, have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State''.
 Subsection (2)(b) adds that 
''the provider meets any requirements imposed on him by the arrangements.''
 Subsection (2) grants absolute power to the Secretary of State at any time, without reference to Parliament, the LEA or the users of nursery education. The Secretary of State can change the guidance at any time without reference to anyone. We can debate what we expect will happen, but when the Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State can change the guidance on a whim. 
 We should achieve a balance between bureaucracy and freedom. We agree that there has to be strict regulation of adults looking after children. We must ensure that regulations on health, safety and suitability of those providing education in loco parentis are achieved without an enormous amount of bureaucracy, which costs so much in funding and time. That can make the role of the provider of early years education almost impossible. The Minister will be glad to hear that I am not making that up. 
 In my constituency, many providers of early years education have told me that they are in danger of being forced out of business because of excessively burdensome regulations. I appreciate the problem: we must safeguard children through regulation, but on the other hand, we must not make regulation so burdensome that providers find that they simply cannot cope with its demands on finances or time. I have noted the problem, but it is up to the Minister to explain how to get round it. I reiterate that I want to get round the problem; we want this part of the Bill to work. However, I wish to ensure that the Government have taken on board the question of the balance between bureaucracy and freedom.

Ivan Lewis: I should point out to the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State was, rightly, given the power to issue appropriate guidance in the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996. I shall give examples of the areas that are covered by such guidance.
 Providers of nursery education must be registered with the local authority to deliver a nursery education place that is free to parents. They must take account of the foundation stage and deliver a curriculum that is consistent with children achieving the early learning goals by the end of their reception year; we have discussed that point. Nursery education must be provided to at least the standard considered acceptable by an Ofsted inspector, and providers must operate a special educational needs policy and identify a setting-based special education needs co-
 ordinator. That is common-sense guidance. The Secretary of State's power to issue it was not granted by this Government but by a previous Conservative Government. We are simply continuing the delegation of power. 
 We have discussed the balance between regulation and quality standards so many times that I find it difficult to say anything new on the issue. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that regulation should be appropriate to the circumstances. We should not over-regulate and overburden public services. The Government must be sensitive to the processes that they put in place and run true to their commitment to take deregulation seriously. 
 Deregulation in the Department for Education and Skills is one of my responsibilities, for the time that I am in my job. I take that responsibility seriously, because I believe that Governments are prone to over-regulating in some areas. That is not done deliberately; there are often unintended consequences of legislation that is put in place for the best of reasons. 
 I acknowledge that there is a real issue. However, the Government cannot listen to every provider of a service that says that it will go out of business if it is regulated. I do not know of a sector that has not made this point whenever the Government propose, usually for the right reasons, to introduce regulations for the first time or a revised regulatory framework. Providers inevitably get worried. 
 Providers that I meet in my constituency or on ministerial visits tell me that there is too much red tape and bureaucracy. I always openly ask them to provide specific examples of over-regulation and bureaucracy, as opposed to good regulation and a reasonable standards framework. That sometimes gets me into trouble; it leads to a massive postbag. On occasion, providers write to me with excellent examples of regulation that is not helpful or necessary. Where I can influence or make representations about that, I will always do so. 
 Providers whom I challenge often find it difficult to provide examples of unnecessary red tape rather than inadequate quality or protection. It is vital that people bring forward tangible and specific examples and that we debate their accuracy. Providers sometimes come forward with examples of what they regard as burdensome red tape which the Government, and perhaps the average person analysing the situation, would say are not over-burdensome and demonstrate not over-regulation but necessary protection.

Chris Grayling: The Minister issued a challenge. I commend him to look at two areas. First, the curriculum books provided to nurseries are too complex and substantial—we are talking about thick documents—to be digested and implemented by the staff of those schools, who are often mothers or fathers working a few hours a week. Secondly, as a result of Ofsted inspections, schools have to create lesson plans that are excessively onerous and which require them to do a substantial amount of work outside paid hours. That is feedback directly from providers in my constituency.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those two examples. On curriculum books for the foundation stage, it is not the thickness of the book—that is insulting to the provider—but the content that matters. I will certainly raise the issue with my ministerial colleague, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, on the basis that a member of the Committee feels that the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage is unnecessarily bureaucratic.
 As one would expect, I speak to teachers all the time and they sometimes talk to me. There are differences of opinion about lesson plans after an Ofsted inspection. Many teachers increasingly find the outcome of Ofsted inspections helpful and supportive as a guide to lesson plans and other issues. It is wrong to make the blanket statement that Ofsted inspections that may cause teachers to have another look at lesson plans or at the way in which they do things are too burdensome and onerous. There is no evidence for that.

Eleanor Laing: I accept the Minister's point but does he accept that many providers of early years education are extremely concerned about the recent change that requires them to be inspected by Ofsted when they were previously inspected by the social services department of the local authority? That change has occurred and I do not say whether it is good or bad—I hope that it is good because we all want the system to work—but I ask the Minister to recognise that there is concern among providers and to undertake to keep the matter in the forefront of his mind as he watches his Government's policy evolve and work in practice.

Ivan Lewis: For as long as I am in post, the hon. Lady has my assurance that I will look at that. In any service or walk of life, change always brings fear and insecurity. That is not a reason for refusing to make change or for refusing massive expansion in early years education and child care. It is a reason for implementing change sensitively and in partnership with providers and parents. It is vital that we do not use fear of change as a reason for preserving an unsatisfactory status quo.
 I agree with the hon. Lady that providers will understandably have concerns when an inspection and regulation regime is changed, but good communication and clarity of roles and responsibilities—fundamentally at local level in respect of the early years partnerships responsibility—will allay many of those concerns. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with that assurance.

Eleanor Laing: I am satisfied and glad to have the Minister's assurance on that point. As for the whole of clause 149, it was a delight once again to hear a Minister more or less say, ''This is what the Conservative Government did, so it must be right.'' That is fine by me.
 Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 150 and 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 15 agreed to. 
 Clauses 152 and 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 154 - The registers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Graham Brady: I seek some brief comments on the requirement for independent schools to register. I have had contact with one of the main representative bodies for such schools, the Independent Schools Council, and it stresses that it is relaxed about the new registration standards under the Bill, not least because it believes that they will be lower than the standards that it requires ISC schools to meet. The ISC goes on to say:
''We are wholly in favour of rapid action to deal with bad independent schools: at the moment it tends to take far too long to get an inadequate independent school closed''.
 The requirements are uncontentious for many independent schools, but they would welcome reassurance from the Minister on one matter: the extent of the changes that will require formal re-registration. The ISC says in its letter to me: 
''While of course changes in the character of, and education provided by, independent schools need to be notified to the DfES under a clear procedure, we are anxious that only major changes should require formal re-registration (and would be very glad of an assurance from the Government on that point)''.
 I hope that the Minister will assure us that only major changes will require formal re-registration, and that a petty and inconsequential change in circumstances or status will not.

Ivan Lewis: I think that I can give that assurance. The difficulty centres on the definition of the word ''major''. I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman, because the meaning of that word could be disputed in the future. The letter that he referred to suggests that the independent sector feels that the legislation is appropriately balanced. I would go further: the legislation is more than reasonable with regard to the standards the sector applies to itself. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that the definition of the word ''major'' will be consistent with that spirit. There will be some discretion, and we would expect a common-sense approach to be taken to any changes.

Graham Brady: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I have no intention of ensnaring him on a definition of ''major'', but I was hoping that he would give his own definition, and flesh out the circumstances in which formal re-registration would be necessary.

Ivan Lewis: I would like to clarify the re-registration point. If there is significant change, the only requirement is to notify the DFES, which has to approve it. That is not a burdensome process. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 158(2):
'''material change', in relation to a school, means—
(a) a change of proprietor
(b) a change of address, or
(c) a change to the school in respect of any of the matters referred to in section 156(2)(a) to (e).''
 That puts a framework around the definition of changes that would be regarded as major or significant.

Graham Brady: As I understand the Minister's remarks, the definition of ''major change'' is comparable to that of a ''material change'' in clause 158. He would not expect schools to have to re-register unless there was such a material change.

Ivan Lewis: I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's understanding of what I said is accurate.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the statement of policy on independent schools. I propose to develop my points in debating the proposed amendments to clause 155, but I would like to refer him to page three of the statement, which says that a school will achieve overarching objectives in the curriculum by providing
''full-time supervised education . . . which incorporates objective and systematic coverage of the broad areas of learning''
 including technology. I am sure that the Minister will remember that during an earlier sitting I referred to Rudolf Steiner schools, which take a particular view of the relevance of technological education, especially at an early age, and how damaging it can be to a child's development. I neither share that view nor disagree with it, as I have insufficient knowledge and understanding to make any judgment. However, the Government are immediately in danger of ruling out several successful schools by their definition of standards in their policy statement. Will the Minister indicate the force of the statements, which I accept are draft statements, and the extent to which he and the National Assembly for Wales—the registration authority for the Principality—are willing to accept that there are ways of doing things different from those that are conventionally acceptable?

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making a valid point. I referred to a pilot project with three Rudolf Steiner schools, which shows the Government's willingness to be flexible and sensitive on these issues to allow for particular circumstances. I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment to consider the wording of the draft statement, to use his phrase, to ensure that it does not create an unnecessary problem.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 155 - Unregistered schools

Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 554, in page 90, line 8, at beginning insert:
'Save as under section [New Independent Schools].'

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 549, in page 90, line 9, at end insert:
'save under subsection (8) below.'
 No. 553, in page 90, line 30, at end insert: 
'(8) A person may conduct an independent school which is not registered subject to the following conditions— 
 (a) that in all literature, websites, advertising, contracts or other information circulated by or on behalf of the school it is made clear at every references to the school that it is ''unapproved'', and that such information contain a statement of the information in (c) below 
 (b) that each parent of any pupil, each year, and each parent of any applicant for admission, prior to accepting a place, be told in writing that the school is ''unapproved'' and be given the information contained in (c) below 
 (c) the information is that the school is neither inspected by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector nor registered to meet certain standards by the Secretary of State or (as the case may be) the National Assembly for Wales.'
 New clause 9—New independent school— 
 To move the following Clause:— 
'(1) Sub-section 155(1) shall not apply to an independent school— 
 (a) before the Chief Inspector has undertaken his inspection and the registration authority determined whether to register the school, 
 (b) within the first twelve months of its establishment unless the school has re-opened with substantially the same management and premises as a former independent school which has been refused registration or removed from the register of independent schools in the previous five years. 
 (c) within the first twelve months of a change of proprietor, unless that person has within the previous five years been the proprietor of a school which has been refused registration or removed from the register of independent schools.'

Graham Brady: The amendments are significant, not least because under the clause an independent school that is not registered will be committing a criminal offence. Subsection (2) sets out the scale of penalties for a fairly serious offence that may carry not only a fine to level 5 on the standard scale, but imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both those penalties. The clause places a heavy penalty on those who act in breach of its terms.
 I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight to move amendment No. 553. Amendments Nos. 554, 549 and new clause 9 seek to establish whether Ministers accept that the phrase in subsection (1) 
''is guilty of an offence''
 is too stark and too black and white where there may be shades of grey. New clause 9 in particular prompts the suggestion that it may be difficult for a new independent school to be registered before it is operational. To facilitate the establishment of a new independent school, the Minister may consider that it would be appropriate not to apply an immediate criminal offence during a limited period, while the establishment is under way. Given that the proprietor of the school must register, what would be the status of the school if that proprietor were to die? That question would arise particularly if it was a new proprietor who had not met any of the previous requirements. 
 These are probing amendments that seek some exposition from the Minister of the Government's thinking about whether, in all circumstances a criminal offence should be said to have been committed if a school ceases to be registered or when, perhaps for technical reasons, it was not possible for it to be registered. We are trying to stimulate a debate around some of the difficult and unusual circumstances that might arise. Does the Minister accept that there may be circumstances in which it is not appropriate for a school to be seen to have committed a criminal offence as soon as it operates when not registered?

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for moving
 this group of amendments. If we are not careful, amendments Nos. 549 and 553 will become the Summerhill school memorial amendments. They demonstrate the significant difference in philosophy about the responsibility for education between the Government and many people outside this place—and perhaps some people inside this place as well.
 The state is not responsible for education; parents are responsible for education. The state makes arrangements to ensure that parents are able to accept the responsibility to seek to achieve for their children what they would like them to achieve. That is a significant distinction, but one that I think has been accepted since Forster's Elementary Education Act 1870—the state is there to assist parents in exercising their responsibility for education. The state must accept that, from time to time, parents will take decisions with which the state is not entirely comfortable and happy. 
 One of the greatest objectives of a tyranny is to deny parents their rightful role in bringing up their families. One of the greatest tyrannies of the 20th century set out specifically to close schools that it did not like. Under the Nazis, Kurt Hahn had to close Salem school and move it to Gordonstoun in Scotland. Many people did not understand the philosophy of Kurt Hahn and are not entirely sympathetic to the philosophy of Gordonstoun. Having employed a secretary who was educated there, I must say that, although she was a wonderful girl in many respects, I am not convinced about the quality of education that was provided. [Interruption] I will not seek to comments on aspects of her personality. 
 The question is to what extent the state should control education. I take a fairly traditional view of what is the best way to achieve a successful education. I am aware that, although the overwhelming majority of people agree that it helps to have children in classrooms and to have a teacher at the front, or at least somewhere, assisting them in their learning, that is not a unanimous view throughout the country. There appears to be a prolonged history, in the Department and in Ofsted, of hostility to certain unusual practices in the education of children. I refer the Committee to the dispute between Summerhill school and the Department, which concluded in an agreement between the two in March 2000. As hon. Members will know, Summerhill operates a philosophy that is very different from that in most schools. It is the philosophy that children can take charge of their learning and do not have to sit in classrooms all day or be taught in a way in which I, probably the Minister and, I suspect, my hon. Friends would regard as normal. 
 Ofsted put Summerhill on a secret list of 61 independent schools and inspected it every year, with a team of inspectors who did not understand the school's democratic philosophy or consult its pupils, 
 ex-pupils or parents. It insisted that the school should change to a process of compulsory lessons, knowing that that was contrary to the ethos under which the school was established. Summerhill went to court to challenge what it called the narrow and unimaginative thinking behind the recommendation. It produced evidence from two teams of education experts, for whom I would not normally have the time of day, and an army of distinguished ex-pupils. In short, it was agreed that Ofsted's recommendation was unacceptable, and three notices of complaint were annulled. Astonishingly, the Government agreed to contribute to the school's legal costs, which was virtually unheard of because the independent schools tribunal has no power to award costs. 
 I do not want to take up too much of the Committee's time on this important case, although I suspect that I may want to go on at this afternoon's sitting. It was the view of parents, the school's counsel, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, and eventually, the Secretary of State, that Summerhill had managed to devised a system that eliminated what were called the great evils of contemporary education—bullying, racism, sex abuse and drug abuse. It would not have been able to do so under the law as proposed by the Bill. 
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West pointed out, the Bill allows no scope for the creation of a new independent school. It is illegal to run a school until it has been approved, there is no way for it to be approved until there is something to inspect, and it cannot be run and be capable of inspection because that would be illegal. I see no way out of that paradox. Even if he cannot do so now, I hope that the Minister will have time before this afternoon's sitting to devise a way out, and I look forward to hearing about it. It does not exist in the Bill, and my hope is that it will be clear that there is no way of preventing people setting up new independent schools in good faith. 
 After the conclusion of the court case, the Secretary of State confirmed that there was no desire to have Summerhill struck off the register, compel children there either to attend lessons or to engage in formal self-supported study, or prevent the school from putting into effect the education philosophy of its founder. Those assurances were given under oath on behalf of the Secretary of State. References to clauses 153 to 164, with which the Minister kindly provided us before this sitting, fly in the face of those assurances, because they set out a mechanistic philosophy of education delivery that is incompatible with the form of education provided and accepted as appropriate by the Secretary of State at Summerhill school. 
 It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.